Human, again (WARNING)

severoon said:

Taking a picture of someone in public, in full view, with no
reasonable expectation of privacy: allowed. Using that picture in
an editorial, educational, newsworthy, satirical, critical, or
"fine art" use: allowed under right to free expression of ideas.
Using that picture to promote a commercial product, service,
religion, or private group (such as the KKK), or placing it in a
context in which it did not occur: not allowed. Using the picture
while placing it in a truthful and accurate context: allowed--this
is a news-type usage that is a primary source of information...all
it does is simply establish one or more facts.

Click to expand...

Here lies the problem with Quebec (and maybe other parts of Canada--perhaps I should check that out, for I live in Canada!). I won't tell you what the law states, but I will give you an example of how it was wielded:

A photographer for a newspaper was taking a photo of some hotel for a story about it; more specifically, a photograph was taken of the front entrance of the hotel. However, this photo also captured a rather clear image of a man (who happened to be a lawyer) walking away from the hotel. The lawyer, upon seeing this photo on the FRONT page of a newspaper, got rather angry and sued the paper, claiming that it looked as if he was leaving the hotel and looking sketchy at that... and god knows what some may think when seeing that: is he leaving the hotel because he was having an affair? Perhaps his wife thought that. He ended up winning the case.

And I assure you, he was in public and so forth. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality. Obviously this bum has no resources to front a legal battle against you, even if you did publish your photo somewhere. Also, I doubt the internet, and non-commercial use of private photos really apply within the realms of whatever Quebecois law was cited by the above anecdote.

Happy shooting!

A few comments:

Nami said:

Just as nutty as the motherland I see

Click to expand...

I suspect that what the poster meant by "motherland" was France, as this would be the motherland of Quebec. If not, Nami's comment is offensive.

What isn't too well known (even in Canada) is that the law is broken into two separate aspects:

1. The Criminal Code of Canada applies to major crimes and is uniformly applicable to all of Canada. These are crimes such as murder, ****, robbery, etc. The most serious crimes.

2. Civil law (tort law) varies from province to province. Most provinces have similar civil laws, EXCEPT the Province of Quebec where civil law is based on French civil law. Of course it has been modified over the years, but the basis has very different roots. Civil law in the remainder of Canada is based on English civil law. When Wolfe (British commander) defeated Montcalm (the French commander) at the Plains of Abraham (Quebec City), the English permitted the French people to retain their language and civil laws, but the English criminal law was imposed.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC

So much to buy - not enough time and money - too much GAS.

PS:

I believe that in all other provinces, the law is quite different. I have a friend - former lawer - now a chief justice - that can fill me in.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC

So much to buy - not enough time and money - too much GAS.

you're wrong..
If you are in puiblic you can be photographed in Canada..
and you can be publisized as well..on a journalsitic manner of coure...
were not talking commercial or anything..
Canon 20D

Like I said as well..he's wrong..there is no Canadian law as such..
and Quebec is the same..I live there.

Journalstic photos-however..If I were to take a similar photograph and place it on my webiste and have it under my company name which now is promoting my work..then yes...you need a release for that endeavour.
--
Canon 20D

Actually, I don't think I'd like to see a larger copy as pointed to in your message.. Looks more like a picture from Los Angeles.. Actually I lived in Sydney for a year way back in 1975... I don't remember seeing someone like this back then... Because of the generous 'dole'... Spelling correct? But that was 31 years ago...

Daniel Reese

People can take pictures of whatever they want of course. I guess my point was that images of the down and out, unless being used for some ameliorative purpose, just seem trite. Most of the time pictures of this sort are taken is because an indigent person seems picturesque.

GP
--
'I am no Einstein' Einstein

The recent shootings at Dawson College were widely publicized all over the world. I worked there and friends and colleagues of mine who appeared on TV and in newspapers etc would never consider taking action against those who photographed and videographed them. And I don't think the Quebec privacy law would have any effect given the newsworthiness of the events.

As far as I could tell the image of the indigent Australian man was exhibited here to show a photographer's prowess in using a new lens and not to raise a social issue. How often are social issues raised here as against technical issues?

Gordon Peffer

--
'I am no Einstein' Einstein

You agree that there is some similarity of the noise issue with the photography issue but then you find the analogy absurd. It's a matter of privacy whether it's someone obtruding on your auditory or your visible (not exactly the word I am looking for). Let's say it's a matter of being left alone.

And yes, analogies are not the best form of argument.

GP
--
'I am no Einstein' Einstein

Gordon Peffer said:

You agree that there is some similarity of the noise issue with the
photography issue but then you find the analogy absurd. It's a
matter of privacy whether it's someone obtruding on your auditory
or your visible (not exactly the word I am looking for). Let's say
it's a matter of being left alone.

And yes, analogies are not the best form of argument.

Click to expand...

Well, that's just the problem with argument by analogy. There are some similarities between any two things...the only question is, will all participants in the discussion recognize them as the relevant characteristics?

Too often I've entered an analogy into the discussion just to find the other person follows the analogy too closely--he conflates the breakdown of the analogy with the breakdown of the argument itself.